GX-210JA vs Core 2 Quad Q6600
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q6600 and GX-210JA processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2270 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.77 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Kentsfield (2007) | Temash (2013) |
| Release date | no data | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Current price | $67 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q6600 and GX-210JA basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1 GHz |
| Bus support | 1066 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q6600 and GX-210JA compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Socket | no data | FT3 BGA |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and GX-210JA. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, DDR3-1066 Memory Controller |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q6600 and GX-210JA. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms GX-210JA by 631% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 6 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and GX-210JA. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a desktop processor while GX-210JA is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and GX-210JA, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
